bladesmith 1
New member
Remington, and others I'm sure, claimed their guns were proofed for nitro powders back when they were still offering Damascus barreled guns. Everyone I know hand loads their shells to 7500psi, or under. That certainly is safe for Damascus barreled SxSs with good barrels. No deep pits, .100 thick at the breech and .030 thick down the barrels. The British look for .020 on Damascus barrels before they'll proof them.
I think most Americans don't know the British have always felt Damascus barrel guns, rifle and shotguns, are safe to shoot so long as they're proofed. In this country where a lot did their own reloading, we got in trouble blowing up Damascus guns because we used the same measures for nitro powders that were used for BP and bulk smokeless powders. That didn't work. Also, because at one time Damascus barreled guns were considered safer than steel barrel guns because the steel ones were made by wrapping a flat piece of steel around a mandrel and lap welding it the entire length of the barrel. This one long weld the length of the barrel was weaker than a bunch of short welds going around the barrel. Then Remington developed a means making barrels by rolling a piece of 2" round stock by 8" long with a 1/2" hole in the middle into a barrel - no welds. They made rifle barrels for the world - saved them a couple of years before bankruptcy. Once they and others started using this method, the Americans needed a means to get customers to buy " fluid steel " barrels because they were so much cheaper to manufacture. SO, we got the " Damascus is unsafe " crock of sh!!."
When I was a kid we use to shoot the biggest, baddest shells we could find in old Damascus guns, never giving it a second thought. Never did blow one up. I wouldn't want to guess how many others did the same thing. They got blown up because of something stuck in the barrel, not nitro shells. I wouldn't do that now because I don't like the snoot flying out of my nose. Sherman Bell did tests that were published in the DGJ where it took 30,000psi to blow up a old Parker. I'm not saying all Damascus barrel guns are that safe, just they're not all that unsafe some people make them out to be. JMHOs.
I think most Americans don't know the British have always felt Damascus barrel guns, rifle and shotguns, are safe to shoot so long as they're proofed. In this country where a lot did their own reloading, we got in trouble blowing up Damascus guns because we used the same measures for nitro powders that were used for BP and bulk smokeless powders. That didn't work. Also, because at one time Damascus barreled guns were considered safer than steel barrel guns because the steel ones were made by wrapping a flat piece of steel around a mandrel and lap welding it the entire length of the barrel. This one long weld the length of the barrel was weaker than a bunch of short welds going around the barrel. Then Remington developed a means making barrels by rolling a piece of 2" round stock by 8" long with a 1/2" hole in the middle into a barrel - no welds. They made rifle barrels for the world - saved them a couple of years before bankruptcy. Once they and others started using this method, the Americans needed a means to get customers to buy " fluid steel " barrels because they were so much cheaper to manufacture. SO, we got the " Damascus is unsafe " crock of sh!!."
When I was a kid we use to shoot the biggest, baddest shells we could find in old Damascus guns, never giving it a second thought. Never did blow one up. I wouldn't want to guess how many others did the same thing. They got blown up because of something stuck in the barrel, not nitro shells. I wouldn't do that now because I don't like the snoot flying out of my nose. Sherman Bell did tests that were published in the DGJ where it took 30,000psi to blow up a old Parker. I'm not saying all Damascus barrel guns are that safe, just they're not all that unsafe some people make them out to be. JMHOs.
Last edited:
